We have two separate claims, (1) Formation of matter cause consciousness and (2) Conscious decision is free.

But a material being is free only if not possessed by an immaterial will. How can a material consciousness make decisions if those decisions are being overridden by this causality-breaking immaterial entity?

You are then just comparing two points of view, and just showing that they are incompatible points of view. Your point 2 (as you define it in the OP) is an invalid claim if you are considering the materialist position. No materialist would agree to it, so asserting it disproves nothing if you find it in conflict with the first point.

(1) and (2) are two different premises. It of course follows that conscious decision is immaterial too once you show that it does not fit in materialistic framework.

Fine. They are different claims. Yes, I agree that your claim does not fit in the materialistic framework. So demonstrate that you make 'conscious decisions', as you define the term.

To demonstrate your point, you would have to demonstrate that you make 'conscious decisions' (as defined in point 2, but not 1). You've made no attempt to do that.

As I described earlier I need both premises.

Still no attempt to do that.

Schrodinger equation is deterministic equation for wave function.

But collapse of wave function is not. So a no-collapse interpretation could be an effective deterministic view. I've not seen many proponents of immaterial minds take the no-collapse interpretation. As I said, materialism does not depend on determinism or the lack of it. It works either way.

That is a hidden claim in materialism, all forms of mater follow the same laws. You need to break the laws of nature in order to have conscious decision. This is impossible under materialism. Therefore consciousness with an element of conscious decision is not the result of matter formation.

As you define the term in point 2, I actually agree with this. Third attempt: What evidence have you of making 'conscious decisions' as thus defined? If you can't do this, what is the point of this thread?

While I am at it, how did point 5 come about? You've not mentioned 'consciousness' since point 1, and made no arguments about it. Suddenly it is "not the result of matter formation". All the points seem to be about 'conscious decision' claim which is just the same as asserting 'immaterial will is the case'. An unbacked assertion is evidence of nothing.

And I'm afraid we simply don't know enough for you to reach that conclusion.

Again: 'free will seems to exist, causality seems to exist, matter (and the energetic interplay of matter) seems to be all there is, so there must be some aspect of matter/causality we just don't grasp yet.'

We have two separate claims, (1) Formation of matter cause consciousness and (2) Conscious decision is free.

But a material being is free only if not possessed by an immaterial will. How can a material consciousness make decisions if those decisions are being overridden by this causality-breaking immaterial entity?

You are jumping to conclusion my friend. We are assuming that conscious decision is possible in materialist framework. We then claim that this requires that laws of nature to break when we change form of matter. This is however not allowed in materialism therefore consciousness is not the result of matter formation. You then can conclude that you need a immaterial mind.

You are then just comparing two points of view, and just showing that they are incompatible points of view. Your point 2 (as you define it in the OP) is an invalid claim if you are considering the materialist position. No materialist would agree to it, so asserting it disproves nothing if you find it in conflict with the first point.

No. I am assuming that conscious decision is possible within materialism and then show that there is a problem.

But collapse of wave function is not. So a no-collapse interpretation could be an effective deterministic view. I've not seen many proponents of immaterial minds take the no-collapse interpretation. As I said, materialism does not depend on determinism or the lack of it. It works either way.

One can show that collapse of wave function cannot be the result of a mind which emerges from matter itself because you need mind to exist in first place to cause collapse of waver function (mind cannot be emergent and cause collapse of wave function at the same time) therefore one need immaterial mind to explain the collapse of wave function.

That is a hidden claim in materialism, all forms of mater follow the same laws. You need to break the laws of nature in order to have
conscious decision. This is impossible under materialism. Therefore consciousness with an element of conscious decision is not the result of matter formation.

As you define the term in point 2, I actually agree with this. Third attempt: What evidence have you of making 'conscious decisions' as thus defined? If you can't do this, what is the point of this thread?

That is just a premises. I however have an argument for that: We are all sure about the fact that thought precedes act and the fact that they are different. There is therefore a point at which there is neither thought nor act. Lets call this point the decision point. This point cannot be affected by thought because otherwise it is a part of chain of thought. Therefore decision is free.

While I am at it, how did point 5 come about? You've not mentioned 'consciousness' since point 1, and made no arguments about it. Suddenly it is "not the result of matter formation". All the points seem to be about 'conscious decision' claim which is just the same as asserting 'immaterial will is the case'. An unbacked assertion is evidence of nothing.

5 comes about as a result of 3 and 4. 3 is the result of 2 and finally 4 is our last premise.

2) Conscious decision (free will: The ability to create a chain of causality) is real

I-Can also defines free will this way. Free will would have been rapidly eliminated as being unfit if this is what it means.

I (playing the role of materialist zombie) have no free will and want to cross a busy dangerous street. I use a similar algorithm to that used by a street-crossing robot, which is to look both ways and choose to wait if there are vehicles approaching, and choose to cross when a safe gap presents itself. It is not a conscious decision as you define it here, but an understandable algorithm based on continuation of causal chains.

But bahman, the free willed agent, is blindfolded and has earmuffs to prevent a causal chain from contaminating the experiment. You just create a chain of causality and consciously decide to cross at some point without looking. 90% chance of being eliminated from the gene pool every time you do that. If you look or listen, then there is a causal chain, and it isn't a conscious decision.

If I am misrepresenting this absurd statement of yours, then come up with another example where a conscious decision (creation of chain of causality) is beneficial.

2) Conscious decision (free will: The ability to create a chain of causality) is real

I-Can also defines free will this way. Free will would have been rapidly eliminated as being unfit if this is what it means.

I (playing the role of materialist zombie) have no free will and want to cross a busy dangerous street. I use a similar algorithm to that used by a street-crossing robot, which is to look both ways and choose to wait if there are vehicles approaching, and choose to cross when a safe gap presents itself. It is not a conscious decision as you define it here, but an understandable algorithm based on continuation of causal chains.

But bahman, the free willed agent, is blindfolded and has earmuffs to prevent a causal chain from contaminating the experiment. You just create a chain of causality and consciously decide to cross at some point without looking. 90% chance of being eliminated from the gene pool every time you do that. If you look or listen, then there is a causal chain, and it isn't a conscious decision.

If I am misrepresenting this absurd statement of yours, then come up with another example where a conscious decision (creation of chain of causality) is beneficial.

I think free will is useful during the process of learning: Should I try this or not? System without free will halts in such a situation when two or more options has equal weight.

But a material being is free only if not possessed by an immaterial will. How can a material consciousness make decisions if those decisions are being overridden by this causality-breaking immaterial entity?

You are jumping to conclusion my friend. We are assuming that conscious decision is possible in materialist framework.

No, I'm talking about immaterial entities here, so that is not a materialist framework. I am talking about material beings in a dualistic framework with the material beings losing their free will when they get possessed by the immaterial entity. A material being is no longer able to make its own decisions, and is thus not free. All that big brain with the huge price tag, and the benefit of it going to waste.

I'm just explaining that I don't see possession as being free. I suppose it makes the immaterial demon more free, but only at the expense of the material being which was doing fine before the possession.

We then claim that this requires that laws of nature to break when we change form of matter.

Nonsense. A morning rain can change the form of matter. No natural law is broken.

Your point 2 (as you define it in the OP) is an invalid claim if you are considering the materialist position.

No. I am assuming that conscious decision is possible within materialism and then show that there is a problem.

Again, that is a non-materialistic claim. You can't assume not-X when disproving X. You have to assume suppose-X and then drive it to inconsistency. You are assuming not-materialism here, and this takes all the validity away from your attempted argument. You honestly don't see this???

You want me show that conscious decision is real? Please see following.

One can show that collapse of wave function cannot be the result of a mind which emerges from matter itself because you need mind to exist in first place to cause collapse of waver function (mind cannot be emergent and cause collapse of wave function at the same time) therefore one need immaterial mind to explain the collapse of wave function.

1)There is no proof of wave function collapse. 2) There is no evidence for mind being involved in wave function collapse. Almost all experiments are run without humans being involved. Most of the time all they do is gather the results after thousands of test runs.
You can still take the epistemological interpretation (as you are doing here) that we don't know the results until we learn of them, so cannot prove they took place, but that is not a quantum mechanical interpretation, it is just idealism. I throw a ball in the air and cannot prove it came back down until somebody measures it. All the mind-causes-collapse interpretations are exactly that: A general metaphysical assertion of idealism, not a QM-specific stance at all.

Point is: Interpretations are proof of nothing. Quote QM science if you need to prove something. What you quote above is not science since there is no empirical test to falsify such an interpretation or its alternates.

Other point is: The example you give is not one of a conscious decision being made (as you define it in point 2). You make no mention of a decision, or of physics being violated in the above statement.

We are all sure about the fact that thought precedes act and the fact that they are different. There is therefore a point at which there is neither thought nor act.

They are not discreet like that, and there is no point where there is neither.

Lets call this point the decision point. This point cannot be affected by thought because otherwise it is a part of chain of thought. Therefore decision is free.

Thought never stops, and can abort an act that is already begun.
The act is very much affected by thought (caused by it), else putting thought into the matter would not be required (as in the example of the free willed guy getting killed crossing the street). So thought is part of the causal chain.
Also, none of this argument (however invalid) fails to apply to the materialist framework, so I'm not sure why you brought this up.

While I am at it, how did point 5 come about? You've not mentioned 'consciousness' since point 1, and made no arguments about it. Suddenly it is "not the result of matter formation". All the points seem to be about 'conscious decision' claim which is just the same as asserting 'immaterial will is the case'. An unbacked assertion is evidence of nothing.

5 comes about as a result of 3 and 4. 3 is the result of 2 and finally 4 is our last premise.

2) Conscious decision (free will: The ability to create a chain of causality) is real

I-Can also defines free will this way. Free will would have been rapidly eliminated as being unfit if this is what it means.

I (playing the role of materialist zombie) have no free will and want to cross a busy dangerous street. I use a similar algorithm to that used by a street-crossing robot, which is to look both ways and choose to wait if there are vehicles approaching, and choose to cross when a safe gap presents itself. It is not a conscious decision as you define it here, but an understandable algorithm based on continuation of causal chains.

But bahman, the free willed agent, is blindfolded and has earmuffs to prevent a causal chain from contaminating the experiment. You just create a chain of causality and consciously decide to cross at some point without looking. 90% chance of being eliminated from the gene pool every time you do that. If you look or listen, then there is a causal chain, and it isn't a conscious decision.

If I am misrepresenting this absurd statement of yours, then come up with another example where a conscious decision (creation of chain of causality) is beneficial.

I think free will is useful during the process of learning: Should I try this or not? System without free will halts in such a situation when two or more options has equal weight.

That's metastability theory. What bearing does it have to the question I asked?
How does the free willed guy survive the street crossing without using data about the traffic?

Edit: Oh, that was your attempt at a different example. A material being is quite capable of choosing one option at random and not 'halting', and it sometimes fails, such as when two people meet and both choose to evade in the same direction, and they keep adjusting identically, possibly finally bumping into each other with a laugh. The fact that this happens must be evidence of lack of free will by your argument.

I think free will is useful during the process of learning: Should I try this or not? System without free will halts in such a situation when two or more options has equal weight.

More to the point, if I am caught in indecision for a time between chocolate and vanilla ice cream today, there is still the knowledge of the two flavors, which is a causal chain. The free willed person would have to make the choice without any knowledge that there is an ice cream choice to be made.

But a material being is free only if not possessed by an immaterial will. How can a material consciousness make decisions if those decisions are being overridden by this causality-breaking immaterial entity?

You are jumping to conclusion my friend. We are assuming that conscious decision is possible in materialist framework.

No, I'm talking about immaterial entities here, so that is not a materialist framework. I am talking about material beings in a dualistic framework with the material beings losing their free will when they get possessed by the immaterial entity. A material being is no longer able to make its own decisions, and is thus not free. All that big brain with the huge price tag, and the benefit of it going to waste.

I'm just explaining that I don't see possession as being free. I suppose it makes the immaterial demon more free, but only at the expense of the material being which was doing fine before the possession.

No. Brain is a source of thought which this is the result of collective memory.

Your point 2 (as you define it in the OP) is an invalid claim if you are considering the materialist position.

No. I am assuming that conscious decision is possible within materialism and then show that there is a problem.

Again, that is a non-materialistic claim. You can't assume not-X when disproving X. You have to assume suppose-X and then drive it to inconsistency. You are assuming not-materialism here, and this takes all the validity away from your attempted argument. You honestly don't see this???

No, I am exactly assuming X="conscious decision is true withing materialist framework" then show a inconsistency.

You want me show that conscious decision is real? Please see following.

One can show that collapse of wave function cannot be the result of a mind which emerges from matter itself because you need mind to exist in first place to cause collapse of waver function (mind cannot be emergent and cause collapse of wave function at the same time) therefore one need immaterial mind to explain the collapse of wave function.

1)There is no proof of wave function collapse.
2) There is no evidence for mind being involved in wave function collapse.
Almost all experiments are run without humans being involved. Most of the time all they do is gather the results after thousands of test runs.
You can still take the epistemological interpretation (as you are doing here) that we don't know the results until we learn of them, so cannot prove they took place, but that is not a quantum mechanical interpretation, it is just idealism. I throw a ball in the air and cannot prove it came back down until somebody measures it. All the mind-causes-collapse interpretations are exactly that: A general metaphysical assertion of idealism, not a QM-specific stance at all.

I agree with what you stated but I am not showing the opposite. I am showing that one can show that there is a contradiction by assuming that there is wave function collapse due to intervention of mind which emerged from process in matter.

Point is: Interpretations are proof of nothing. Quote QM science if you need to prove something. What you quote above is not science since there is no empirical test to falsify such an interpretation or its alternates.

Other point is: The example you give is not one of a conscious decision being made (as you define it in point 2). You make no mention of a decision, or of physics being violated in the above statement.

Well, this discussion started from the point that you declare that wave function is not deterministic when it collapses. Determinism rules within materialism when there is no collapse of wave function.

The act is very much affected by thought (caused by it), else putting thought into the matter would not be required (as in the example of the free willed guy getting killed crossing the street). So thought is part of the causal chain.

While I am at it, how did point 5 come about? You've not mentioned 'consciousness' since point 1, and made no arguments about it. Suddenly it is "not the result of matter formation". All the points seem to be about 'conscious decision' claim which is just the same as asserting 'immaterial will is the case'. An unbacked assertion is evidence of nothing.

5 comes about as a result of 3 and 4. 3 is the result of 2 and finally 4 is our last premise.

Not one of 2,3,4 mention 'consciousness'.

I see what do you mean. Let me write in more clear way

1) Consciousness decision (the ability to create a chain of causality) is real and it is the result of matter formation (assumption)
2) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
3) This is impossible within materialism framework
4) Therefore (1) is wrong

This means that we have go give up either (a) conscious decision is real or (b) conscious decision is the result of matter formation. One can argue in favor of (a) therefore we have to give up (b).

I-Can also defines free will this way. Free will would have been rapidly eliminated as being unfit if this is what it means.

I (playing the role of materialist zombie) have no free will and want to cross a busy dangerous street. I use a similar algorithm to that used by a street-crossing robot, which is to look both ways and choose to wait if there are vehicles approaching, and choose to cross when a safe gap presents itself. It is not a conscious decision as you define it here, but an understandable algorithm based on continuation of causal chains.

But bahman, the free willed agent, is blindfolded and has earmuffs to prevent a causal chain from contaminating the experiment. You just create a chain of causality and consciously decide to cross at some point without looking. 90% chance of being eliminated from the gene pool every time you do that. If you look or listen, then there is a causal chain, and it isn't a conscious decision.

If I am misrepresenting this absurd statement of yours, then come up with another example where a conscious decision (creation of chain of causality) is beneficial.

I think free will is useful during the process of learning: Should I try this or not? System without free will halts in such a situation when two or more options has equal weight.

That's metastability theory. What bearing does it have to the question I asked?

You cannot have intelligent/rational being, the person of your example, without free will.

How does the free willed guy survive the street crossing without using data about the traffic?

We basically primarily learn things through trial and error. We then learn to trust others and learn things from them. Yet we still use trial and error when we are at the peak of our knowledge and want to learn new thing.

Edit: Oh, that was your attempt at a different example. A material being is quite capable of choosing one option at random and not 'halting', and it sometimes fails, such as when two people meet and both choose to evade in the same direction, and they keep adjusting identically, possibly finally bumping into each other with a laugh. The fact that this happens must be evidence of lack of free will by your argument.

I think there is not such a thing as randomness in reality. Randomness arises as a factor in all physical system because of focusing on a sub-system instead of whole. The wave function of whole is deterministic.

All that big brain with the huge price tag, and the benefit of it going to waste.

No. Brain is a source of thought which this is the result of collective memory.

I don't disagree with that, but you are claiming that all that thought is disregarded, with conscious decisions not being influenced by that thought. Hence it going to waste. There is no point in thought if it doesn't lead to productive action. The brain is just a huge expense of metabolism that is needless if it lets new causal chains choose the actions.

We then claim that this requires that laws of nature to break when we change form of matter.

Nonsense. A morning rain can change the form of matter. No natural law is broken.

That is true. Therefore materialism fails to explain conscious decision.

You are now claiming that rain needs to make an immaterial conscious decision (break a law of nature) in order to make the grass wet? I don't think you mean that, but you are not being clear here. I can only guess.

No, I am exactly assuming X="conscious decision is true withing materialist framework" then show a inconsistency.

This just shows that materialism does not define 'conscious decision' that way. I agree, it leads to inconsistency. So premise 2 is demonstrably false in the materialist framework. So what? Point 2 has not been shown to be the case (and has in fact been demonstrated to be absurd even in dualistic framework), so materialism itself is still consistent. You seem not to recognize this blatant use of argument begging.

I agree with what you stated but I am not showing the opposite. I am showing that one can show that there is a contradiction by assuming that there is wave function collapse due to intervention of mind which emerged from process in matter.

I never claimed there is mind-related collapse, be it immaterial or not. There is zero evidence for this. The position is one of idealism, and idealism is not QM related. Materialism is incompatible with idealism. For the record, I am neither. I'm just ragging on your inability to construct a valid argument. There are some fairly good arguments against materialism, and this thread is not an example of one of them. I'm not sure if it is attempting to be.

Well, this discussion started from the point that you declare that wave function is not deterministic when it collapses. Determinism rules within materialism when there is no collapse of wave function.

Materialism doesn't assert lack of collapse of the wave function. It doesn't assert collapse either. I think the pilot-wave (or hidden variable) interpretation attempts to combine collapse and determinism, but materialism doesn't assert that interpretation either. Materialism just says that everything is matter or a function/property of it, fairly close to your point 1.

Yes, I agree that thought is part of causal chain.

But you say that conscious decision is not, so it is not based on the thought. What purpose is served by the calorie burning thought then? It forces us to find considerably more food than we would otherwise require, an evolutionary disadvantage if it has no benefit.

We need to show that conscious decision is real. We can accept it as a premises or argue about it.

I'm arguing about it because it (as you have defined it) is absurd. Accepting it as a premise just shows that the premise is false when it leads to contradiction, as you have shown in your OP.

I see what do you mean. Let me write in more clear way

1) Consciousness decision (the ability to create a chain of causality) is real and it is the result of matter formation (assumption)
2) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
3) This is impossible within materialism framework
4) Therefore (1) is wrong

I agree, (1) is wrong, but not because of (3). It is just a self-inconsistent assumption.
Point 2 as worded is allowed, but only because it doesn't say that arranging matter in specific form doesn't require a break in causality.
Point 3 still stands, since point 1 (but not point 2) is impossible within materialism framework. It indeed doesn't describe materialism.
You have succeeded (in step 3 actually) in proving that point 1 does not describe materialism. So what? Point 4 says that point 1 is just wrong, but doesn't follow since there is no premise that materialism is true.

This means that we have go give up either (a) conscious decision is real or (b) conscious decision is the result of matter formation. One can argue in favor of (a) therefore we have to give up (b).

OK, let's give up (b). Now it reads thus:

1) Consciousness decision (the ability to create a chain of causality) is real (assumption)
2) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form <-- Irrelevant to (3) below, but I kept it.
3) This is impossible within materialism framework
4) Therefore (1) is not consistent with the materialism framework

I changed the wording of (4) since "(1) is wrong" just doesn't follow from the prior 3 points. I think it is wrong anyway, but my argument is by reductio ad absurdum, not by the steps you put forth here.

You cannot have intelligent/rational being, the person of your example, without free will.

This is completely wrong as you have described 'free will'. Rational choice is impossible without a causal chain, as the example demonstrates. To ignore the traffic when crossing the street is irrational. You apparently disagree.

We basically primarily learn things through trial and error.

To err in crossing the street is potentially fatal. You don't get a second try. Using learned knowledge would be a causal chain, also not part of your definition.

The free willed person would have to make the choice without any knowledge that there is an ice cream choice to be made.

Without any knowledge?

Yes. Knowledge is part of the causal chain. I base my decisions partly on what I know (thought and memory), and on the situation at hand (such as a choice of ice cream flavors being presented), all of which are causal chains. To initiate a causal chain is to make a conscious decision without any of that input, else it would just be a continuation of a chain, violating your definition.

1) Let's assume the opposite: Consciousness is the result of matter formation
2) Conscious decision (free will: The ability to create a chain of causality) is real
3) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
4) This is impossible within materialism framework
5) Therefore consciousness is not the result of matter formation